DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP24160637.5 filed on 02/29/2024 has been received/retrieved by the office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2025 and 06/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the carrier gas is one of the two or more reactants” which renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1 recites “injecting two or more reactant and a carrier gas…” meaning there requires two or more reactants in addition to the carrier gas, therefore when the carrier gas is one of the reactant, there cannot be two or more reactant and a carrier gas.
The claim has not been further treated on its merits, as examiner cannot determine the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the claims recites similar limitation as claim 3, and claims 15 and 18, from which claim 17 and 20 depends from, respectively, recites similar limitation as claim 1 and thus the claims are rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “the tow or more reactant” which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term.
The claim has not been further treated on its merits, as examiner cannot determine the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2014/0024138A1 hereinafter “Kwon”.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a method for dry etching a compound (¶39L1-5: an etching process) comprising at least two metals (¶57L9-16: first layer may include CoFE; ¶58L11-17:second layer may include Fe) , the method comprising:
injecting two or more reactants (¶42L1-5: etching gas may include PF3; ¶62L1-8: second etching gas include SF6) and a carrier gas (¶41L10-12: the surface activation gas may include CO) into an etching chamber (¶36L4-5: a process chamber) comprising the compound (¶36L4-5: a wafer can be loaded), wherein
each of the metals can be etched by a plasma of at least one of said reactants (¶61L7-10: the first layers may be patterned using the first etching process and the second layers may be patterned using a second etching process), stopping the injection of at least one of the two or more reactants (¶54L1-8: the etching gas and the surface activation gas may be alternately supplied), and responsively causing a decrease of the concentration of at least one reactant of the two or more reactants (¶68L1-5: second etching process may be an etching process that uses at least one material other than PF3) (Note: since the second etching process uses a different gas, the concentration between the PF3 and material other than PF3 will decrease, as there will be no PF3 in the second etching process), and
igniting a plasma (¶9L1-5: applying a RF power into the process chamber to convert at least a portion of the etching gas into a plasma state) within the etching chamber for a time period such that the plasma is present during the decrease of the concentration. (¶50L1-14: applying RF power and supplying the etching gas may be alternately and repeatedly performed during etching process)
Regarding claim 2, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the carrier gas is different from any of the reactants and is not reactive toward the compound. (¶41L10-12: the surface activation gas may include at least one of Ar, Xe. )
Regarding claim 4, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
stopping the injection of at least one of the two or more reactants comprises stopping the injection of at least two of the reactants, responsively causing the decrease of each of the concentrations of the at least two of the reactants (¶54L1-8: the etching gas and the surface activation gas may be alternately supplied), and wherein
igniting a plasma within the etching chamber comprises igniting the plasma within the etching chamber for a time period such that the plasma is present during each of the decreases of the concentrations. (¶9L1-5: applying a RF power into the process chamber to convert at least a portion of the etching gas into a plasma state; (¶50L1-14: applying RF power and supplying the etching gas may be alternately and repeatedly performed during etching process)
Regarding claim 5, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the ignition of the plasma is started within a time window extending from 500 ms before and 500 ms after the stopping of the injection of one of the reactants. (as shown in Figs. 5-8 for example)
Regarding claim 9, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
each reactant for which injection is stopped is injected at a gas flow of 0.1 sccm to 1500 sccm. (¶50L12-14: a flow rate of the etching gas may be between account 3scm/minute to about 10 scm/minute)
Regarding claim 12, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the compound forms a conductive element of a semiconductor device. (¶5: manufacturing a semiconductor device capable of effectively etching a metal layer)
Regarding claim 13, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the etching process is conducted in cycles. (as shown in Figs. 5-8 for example)
Regarding claim 14, Kwon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the carrier gas comprises one or more of Ar, He, Xe , N2, and O2 (¶41L10-12: the surface activation gas may include at least one of Ar, Xe)
Regarding claim 15 Kwon discloses a system for dry etching a compound comprising at least two metals, the system comprising:
an etching chamber (¶36L4-5: a process chamber) configured to receive the compound; (¶36L4-5: a wafer can be loaded)
a gas delivery system configured to inject one or more reactants and a carrier gas into the etching chamber (¶38L1-7: a gas inflow path and a gas outflow path);
a plasma generation system configured to ignite and maintain a plasma within the etching chamber (¶37L1-5: a source power for generating plasma); and
a controller (¶71L3: a controller) configured to:
control the gas delivery system to stop the injection of at least one of the one or more reactants (¶54L1-8: the etching gas and the surface activation gas may be alternately supplied), responsively causing the decrease of the concentration of at least one reactant of the one or more reactants (as shown in Fig.8 for example); and
igniting a plasma (¶9L1-5: applying a RF power into the process chamber to convert at least a portion of the etching gas into a plasma state) within the etching chamber for a time period such that the plasma is present during the decrease of the concentration. (¶50L1-14: applying RF power and supplying the etching gas may be alternately and repeatedly performed during etching process)
Regarding claim 16, Kwon discloses the system according to claim 15, wherein
the carrier gas is different from any of the reactants and is not reactive toward the compound. (¶41L10-12: the surface activation gas may include at least one of Ar, Xe.)
Regarding claim 18, Kwon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for dry etching a compound comprising at least two metals comprising:
injecting two or more reactants (¶42L1-5: etching gas may include PF3; ¶62L1-8: second etching gas include SF6) and a carrier gas (¶41L10-12: the surface activation gas may include CO) into an etching chamber (¶36L4-5: a process chamber) comprising the compound (¶36L4-5: a wafer can be loaded) wherein each of the metals can be etched by a plasma of at least one of said reactants (¶61L7-10: the first layers may be patterned using the first etching process and the second layers may be patterned using a second etching process), stopping the injection of at least one of the two or more reactants (¶54L1-8: the etching gas and the surface activation gas may be alternately supplied), and
responsively causing a decrease of the concentration of at least one reactant of the two or more reactants (¶68L1-5: second etching process may be an etching process that uses at least one material other than PF3) (Note: since the second etching process uses a different gas, the concentration between the PF3 and material other than PF3 will decrease, as there will be no PF3 in the second etching process, and
igniting a plasma (¶9L1-5: applying a RF power into the process chamber to convert at least a portion of the etching gas into a plasma state) within the etching chamber for a time period such that the plasma is present during the decrease of the concentration. (¶50L1-14: applying RF power and supplying the etching gas may be alternately and repeatedly performed during etching process)
Regarding claim 19, Kwon discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 18, wherein
the carrier gas is different from any of the reactants and is not reactive toward the compound. (¶41L10-12: the surface activation gas may include at least one of Ar, Xe. )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of US2017/0186621A1 hereinafter “Zaitsu”
Regarding claim 6, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1,
Kwon does not explicitly disclose:
the timing of stopping the injection of at least one of the two or more reactants is determined based on the etching rates of each metal in the presence of its primary reactant when the plasma is ignited.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the injection time based on the etch rate of the material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the relation between etch rate and etchant gas feed time is well known in the art, for example, as disclosed in Fig.4B of Zaitsu and that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 6,
Kwon does not explicitly disclose:
determining the relative etching rates of each metal in the presence of the reactant most responsible for its etching rate when the plasma is ignited.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the injection time based on the etch rate of the material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the relation between etch rate and etchant gas feed time is well known in the art, for example, as disclosed in Fig.4B of Zaitsu and that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1,
Kwon does not explicitly disclose:
the magnitude of the flow rates of the two or more reactants during their injection period is determined based on the etching rates of each metal in the presence of the reactant most responsible for its etching rate when the plasma is ignited.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the injection time based on the etch rate of the material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the relation between etch rate and etchant gas feed time is well known in the art, for example, as disclosed in Fig.4B of Zaitsu and that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1,
Kwon does not explicitly disclose:
the compound is amorphous.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the layers disclosed by Kwon to be amorphous.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon discloses the method according to claim 1,
Kwon does not explicitly disclose
the compound forms a layer which is at least 10 nm thick and is crystalline.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the layers disclosed by Kwon to be 10nm thick and crystalline.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights